UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
THOMAS CARVER STEPHENS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington and Raleigh. James C.
Fox, Senior District Judge.
(7:98-cr-00049-F-1; 5:98-cr-00083F-1)

Submitted:

October 7, 2013

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

October 9, 2013

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker,
Kristine
L.
Fritz,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
In 1998, Thomas Carver Stephens pleaded guilty in two
separate

cases

to

bank

robbery,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

2113(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006).

The district court

sentenced Stephens to 168 months of imprisonment for the bank

robbery conviction and a concurrent 120 months of imprisonment
for

the

firearm

conviction,

supervised release.

followed

by

three

years

of

After his release from incarceration, the

district court found that Stephens had violated the terms of his
supervised

release.

The

court

revoked

Stephens

supervised

release and sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment

on

each

appeals.

conviction,

to

be

served

concurrently.

Stephens

Finding no error, we affirm.

Stephens

argues

that

the

revocation

sentence

is

plainly unreasonable as the district court failed to properly

consider his need for substance abuse treatment in sentencing
him above the advisory Guidelines range.
imposed

on

revocation

to

determine

We review a sentence

whether

the

sentence

was

plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

437 (4th Cir. 2006).

Although a district court must consider

the

in

policy

statements

Chapter

Seven

of

the

United

States

Sentencing Guidelines along with the statutory requirements of

18 U.S.C. 3583 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006), the
3

court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous

sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum.

Id. at 439 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal

authorities and conclude that the sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED